parts of it for people to gather or whatever. basically a walk you basically walk through a passage for the top. >> that is true. the park has a plaza and an amphitheater for that, that are built to hold a lot of people and the congregation. because this is on the entrance to the transit, this is a place that most people are going through it to get to something else. what the retail is doing there is animating that space, not filling it. i think it's primary function, other than my function, i want to relate it to the park, but its primary function is to move people into the station and out of the station. it is a way of making, i think, a really wonderful entrance to add to the interior spaces, which are extraordinary.

commissioner moore: may i have you for one more second? you talked about multiple part environments and multiple park experience on top of the roof. one of the questions i asked about five years ago, and it was probably as, as far as i'm concerned, this project will only be successful if it over the years if it is protected from shadow -- it was probably you i asked. what are you doing to anticipate in identified future building sites, which this department has indeed somewhat sketched out, that the major active part elements are indeed in sunlight in perpetuity? otherwise, i think this park

will never be what we are expecting it to be, partially because we are not new york and we do not have elevated rooftop parks. >> that is the one part of your question i did not answer. we are doing the studies, and we will be glad to get back to you. commissioner antonini: i think this is a sensational plan, and i did have a couple of questions for mr. walker, but i have comments as well. during your remarks, i think you said that we would hope these trees would have a life of 100 years, but i would expect they will live longer than that. is there some constraint on the redwoods in this sort of environment that would make their lifetime less? >> i always tell my students when i start of projects, i would put a $2,000 tree in a $200 hole, and now i go the other way around.

their life is subject to so many conditions. they are not going to suffer too much from a drought over a couple of years. it will not do what it does to the broadleaf evergreens, but whether they live that long will be whether they receive a certain amount of care. part of the care and perhaps the most important -- it is the same in new york -- is that system has to work. somebody has to care about the system, and when something is going wrong, they have to go out and fixed the system. most of the things that are going on in the city with regard to plans is not because the plants are growing too large or too fast. in new york, the average life of a tree is under 10 years, average, of all trees in the city, including parks. the park trees do better because they have a better hole. they are coming out of something

better. but the trees in the street and the trees in the plazas -- for instance, the trees in front of rockefeller center -- they are replaced every three and a half years. it is because the cities are a very tough place to grow things. even hardy trees that do very well are under real attack. the redwood is probably as dirty a tree as one could imagine, and that is why they are thousands of years old. but i think it is foolish to say in the city that if we ignore the trees and do not take care of them, that we are not shortening their life because we are. we are intending to put it in in a form which could easily live that long, but whether the states, you know, that is up to the body politic. commissioner antonini: i was very impressed by the system you are devising in the fact that the base is large enough to allow restructure to develop and have this continuous recycling

of water. it would seem with the proper care, the given a lot of the conditions that are good for redwoods because we do have some shade. we do have moisture from fog and a lot of the conditions that exist in nature exist within san francisco. >> it is tremendously important. it was one of our major issues of the park. the park is collecting water, taking it down to a tank that is below the station and pumping it back up into the fall. let's face it -- we are in a continuing drought situation. all of the thng on potable wate, depending on the sewers, which are clogging up, we have to do things about that, and we are in a position to do it project by project. i would advocate it being down across the board, but when we have situations like the park and like this plaza and like the area of new york, if we do not grasp the opportunity, we're just making things worse. >> thank you. one other question with regards to mission square -- what is the

size of mission square proposed to be? >> maybe i could tell you approximately. just a second. 40,000 feet? commissioner antonini: ok, and how would that work in terms of acres? >> i should point out, that is just the area from the property line to mission street, but mission square will go all the way to the door. it is going across the property line, so it will go all the way to station doors. it will lot stock of the property line. so it is a little larger. commissioner antonini: yes, a little over an acre. why i think that is significant is i was impressed by your renderings, and it reminded me of rockefeller center. we do not have that kind of situation in san francisco with the tall spires of buildings

that are surrounding a public space. we also have the possible analogy to grand central station with the transbay terminal, but i think that is something that would be a very popular and welcoming meeting place and gathering place. it sounds like the size of that is big enough to make that a possibility. >> i think even more than the size, if i could get on the phone to you and say, "i will meet u.s. -- meet you at x" and you know what x is, then that is a success. you might have to get at a map and find out exactly where it was, but i think we should make our places distinct. the city should be made up of a series of distinct places. that is what we're trying to do. commissioner antonini: exactly

like the area in front of at&t park. it is great meeting place, and even though a lot of people live there, it presents very well. thank you very much for your answers to the questions. i just had a couple of other comments -- i particularly did like the idea of the redwood in that the kennedys are not all the same height. it allows a sun streamed to flow in, so great choice of trees. a lot of our questions were answered. i think that the bridge from the tower to the park, particularly impressed with two elements, the 20-foot sidewalk on mission street, which is very important because we will have so much foot traffic. we need as much room as we can possibly get, and the sun screens which will immediately raise wind conditions to some degree, and also add to the beauty of the building because it will reflect light differently.

i think it is a wonderful plan, and i like the renderings very much. commissioner wu: i also want to thank the architect for the renderings of mission square. really like seeing the retail. really like seeing the funicular. i just want to comment about how i think this will be the tallest building in san francisco or west of the mississippi. i think tall buildings are part of defining a city. it is part of a skyline. also, how we welcome people into the city, who gets to use these new beautiful spaces. i think that is part of the reason why people come to san francisco, that they feel welcome. when i think of new parks around the country, i think of the high line. to be frank, i never see any poor people on the high line, and i want to make sure there is access to everyone in the city.

it may mean making a funicular free or it may mean more connections to other buildings. probably this details can be worked out, but i just want to state that as a principal -- principle. commissioner borden: the other commissioners have run up the love creek points, and i agree with what everyone has brought up so far. the issue of access is a major issue, and having other ways to access it. being able to access the park from all around the building i think is really important. as we look at the escalators, and if there's an opportunity for something exterior, that would make a lot of sense. i guess my only major concern is just about maintenance. i guess maybe transbay joint

powers authority would be in charge of maintenance of the trees. is that correct? i just want to make sure of who is in charge. >> the tjpa is responsible for maintenance of the park on the roof. the plaza in front would be maintained by the developer at the tower. >> to clarify, the plaza is part of the open space requirement for the tower under the planning code. they are required to maintain it. commissioner borden: maybe staff can answer this. how are we finding the ongoing maintenance of the park? -- how are we finding -- how are we funding the ongoing maintenance? >> they can answer the question. i believe that program. >> that has been something we have been working together as a

team to try and find ways to do. they have a maintenance plan that they are working out, but there's also investigation into concessions and restaurants on the park or in the building that also support the maintenance of the park on the roof. >> thank you, commissioners. bob beck with tjpa. tjpa will be responsible for the administration and maintenance of the park. we will be contacting for those services. we have also had conversations with recreation and park about potentially participating in that in some form, but in terms of the funding for the maintenance of the park, we are looking at a number of strategies. there is a cbd that has been

developed in rincon hill. the redevelopment agency is having conversations with them about expanding that to encompass the redevelopment zone and potentially even extending it as far center or r settingcbd that is more focused -- setting up a separate cbd. in terms of the total operation, the old terminal will receive some support from mtc through the former bridge tolls through the operations center, and also we have the retail programs that will be in the transit center that will help offset operating costs, and then any excess operating costs will be supported by the transit operators themselves, but we want to draw the line between the transit-related expenses and the open space related expenses.

>> thank you. obviously of the important thing is that it is well-maintained and it is a place people want to use. overall, a lot of great improvements. the 20-foot sidewalk, the solar panels, the help with the wind. there's a lot of great attributes. i see there is a canopy. i actually do not think -- i have mixed feelings about that because i feel like a canopy could block sunlight, but at the same time, i do believe there is some need for shade. i guess at some future point, maybe we could talk about the thoughts around that. >> well, you are listening from a landscape architect. each of us have our own trades and our own way of doing things. the kennedy did not have any function. it was simply something which gestured to the top. i think that the trees, with all deference to my colleague here

-- i think the trees are a much more poetic way of doing the same thing. all it was trying to do was take your eye up and connect the two. perhaps more important than either of those is the little funicular. i think that will catch people's imagination. it is genetic. even though it is small, it will be something that is important. think of any other place that has one of those. commissioner borden: i think the idea of having it be free or very inexpensive would beat a great idea. thanks. commissioner fong: i know commissioners had other, as, but if i may make some general ones on design. with some caution and the role we play, you make it easy to become excited about the space you are talking about and how you describe it. i think the funicular is a great

addition. as you point out, it becomes a landmark, and iconic place to meet, a sense of space. i believe that adding motion to it and throwing people of would physically -- i agree that it should keep moving in operation to drum movement towards that and create motion. i love the idea of the nighttime activity and activation of this area. this could be very well the first place people see when they arrive, so having the city park at night or in day active i think is very important, and a new entry point for san francisco. we are talking about the landscaping, the height of the building, the skyline change, but i also want to point out this might be reinforcing job generation for san francisco, reenforcing office space, living space, dining space, activity, and so that is huge for us to

make an investment city-wide for the city, and i think building this kind of concentration, as this project and this plan does, really emphasizes that need that i think we will enjoy down the road for years to come. unsupportive and happy you were able to come today and give an update, and a look forward to hearing more. speaking more, commissioner moore. commissioner moore: i wanted to support and echoed the concerns expressed by not only commissioner wu and commissioner borden, but also by the public regarding equal access to the transit center and to the park from all sides. i do think it cannot just be loaded primarily from one direction, where your son not a believer in bridges from other buildings, which i hope the city will be greatly stay away from. there are many other ways of how

to get people through buildings up to the level of the park, and a thing that needs to be very carefully started, and anything the planning department can do on its own to make suggestions, it definitely needs to be developed further. also, to give those people who work for dissipating equal rights to having it as part of their fun. to the comment of social equity, i think that is and always important part of this commission. there is almost nothing one can describe, but one can manage the park with a more open in. you do not have to wear a three piece suit in order to be there, and i think that goes very far. i have a question for mr. beck, if you would not mind. when is this part going to happen? from previous meeting minutes of

board meetings, understand that ultimately, the joint effort of many of the future building owners will create the park, but many of those buildings have not materialized. am i wrong with that? when is this part going to be happening? >> the park is part of our phase one construction scope, so we will be -- the team is designing it now, and it will be constructed as part of our phase one program, which is scheduled to open in october of 2017. >> that includes the creation of mission square, and that includes the construction of the funicular? >> mission square would be developed and paid for by the developer, so the final construction of that and the opening of that would be determined by the time line for the development, which once we

are in a position to sell that property would then be under the control of the developer. commissioner moore: the reason why i'm asking is it obviously leaves the attraction of access somewhat lagging behind, and that indeed creates a somewhat not most desirable experience because most people -- and i think we are all creatures of habit -- use a space by the original ways of how they approach it. that is just the way we are. if we have a house with five doors, we mostly will choose one as a primary way we enter and ultimately might use a second, but we rarely use five doors in the same sequence over and over again. i believe the main access is to come from that side. am i correct or not? >> the design of the transit center, the mission square and

that was up are definitely -- is our front door, and we do have terms where we would potentially have temporary easement and temporary access if the tower is moving on a schedule behind ours, but that the construction of the flaws that is ultimately -- will be at the cost of the developer. in terms of looking at overall movement, based on the dispersion of destinations and offices around the transit center, we expect about 44% of the pedestrian traffic to come through missions where. about 34% to come from the west end, connecting up to mission street, so roughly 1/3 from that direction, and about 20% from the east and of the facility.

we have looked at where the populations are around the transit center, and missions where is definitely our front door. we will have temporary improvements there if the tower is lagging behind our schedule. commissioner moore: i appreciate you talking about temporary improvements. >> i think your point is well taken, that if the tower is delayed for any reason, that the access via the funicular would not happen until that does move forward. it suggests to me that we should worked together to figure out a temporary way funding program to emphasize connections to the park during the interim years between the construction of the park and opening and the tower. commissioner moore: i would hope that landscape architect walker would have a tree farm already where he would start growing redwoods, said that when the tower delay comes in, that the trees are commensurately taller with the delay the building

might have. that is a tongue-in-cheek comment, but i am quite serious about that. this will be a large hole in the fabric of the city potentially for some time to come. we always hear very powerful, optimistic presentations, but we also know of the changing economy, which has created many and the opportunities, for which we are extending project entitlements without seeing much happening, and i hope we are not in a cycle with this particular project would be affected in light of the fact that the transit center is moving forward, the coming a reality, but meeting the power to market itself. one quick comment for mr. clarke. i appreciate the redesign of the building. i think the tabling of the building and pulling the columns in makes the building appear as tall as it was before. that is the art of capering in building, and i think very

skillfully done. do you by any chance already have a sample of your white solar sunscreen's? i would love to see them in terms of what they look like. >> would love to show them to you. yes, we do. commissioner moore: i would love to see them, and i think the commission would, also. i would like to put the fear of the gentleman who spoke about the reduction of how many feet we have -- 130 feet high being indeed a losing proposition as being unsubstantiated because hyde is really not receivable at that height anyway. but you would agree with me as a high-rise designer that this gentleman should rest assured that the building will still look very tall and the taper of the towers will make that possible. i appreciate your comment on the third exiting stair. at the time, the code did not require it. it came shortly thereafter.

i am glad you are putting the structurally thinking people in this audience to rest with that. we will have further discussions with you. >> thanks very much. commissioner antonini: thank you. the question has not been asked, but one that is obvious is with the construction of the transit tower and the accompanying towers, there will be a tremendous amount of new commercial space provided. will the demand be there? contrary to what is sometimes commented, in reviewing the fortune 500, san francisco has seven of the 500 companies, which does not sound like a lot, but it is far more than any other city in california, which has 53. the nearest in california is los angeles with four. we also have more headquarters in chicago and philadelphia, and, of course, indianapolis, jacksonville, cleveland, pittsburgh, and a myriad of

cities. the other thing that is important is that because of the emphasis on climate control and sustainability, there will be an interest in people living closer to where they worked. i commented on the book the great in version that is very interesting. the thesis is that people are choosing to live in center cities again throughout the world, and this has been happening for quite a while. i think all these things are moving at the same time, and providing the space, and very attractive space for business, will attract more companies of all sizes, but particularly larger companies, many of which are also already here in san francisco but do not happen to be publicly traded like bechtel and levis and others, which are large companies, but do not qualify under the 500. i think the market is here already, and it can only grow by

providing the kind of space we are looking at with this tower and the others that will be added to it. commissioner fong: i think that concludes commissioner's comments. >> thank you. we can then move forward on your calendar to item 3, the transit center district plan and transit tower. before you is the certification of final environmental impact report. public hearing for this item is closed. following staff opening comments, the matter will be before you for your consideration. commissioner fong: thank you. >> thank you. good morning, members of the commission. my name is sarah jones. i am with the environmental planning division, and i am joined by greg, also in environmental planning.

kevin, josh, david, and alan from planning staff, and we have called from esa. he led the environmental consultant team. he is here today as well. the item before you this certification of the final environmental impact report for the transit center district plan. this analysis also included the environmental review for the transit tower project that you just discussed and heard about. before you, you have a copy of the eir certification motion. the draft was published on september 28, 2011. the public hearing on the draft was held november 3, 2011, and the public comment closed on november 28. the cnr document we're discussing today was published and distributed on may 10, 2012. i have a couple of points to make about this document.

it addressed the proposed zoning as well as proposed changes to the transit center district plan that were made after the publication of the draft eir as well as the new information about the transit tower that came from the application that was filed in march. the eir found that there were no substantive changes in the analysis that were necessary to respond to those changes. the eir recognized that there were potential significant impact from shadows on parks and open spaces, including nine parks under the protection of section 295 of the planning code. the eir described that each building under the plan would undergo review under section 295. since the time that the document was circulated, the cnr document, there has been some discussion about approaching the